RED HEIFER CALF BORN LAST WEEK IN ISRAEL!!

In your opinion what version or translation of the bible is reliable? The KJV of the bible is totally reliable, perhaps not the best revision for understanding for some but still was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore accurate in all respects. I am sure that God knew beforehand all of the major revisions and translations of the bible that would be composed, read and studied and that they are all reliable as a source of truth.

I really don't think that you are the sole person in possession of the truth either.

I do agree with your view that a pure red heifer is required to be sacrificed in the temple that will one day be built but as a few others have pointed out, pure red heifers are really not that rare so therefore a newborn pure red heifer does not seem to be the obstacle that is preventing construction of the temple.

How do you know if Christ believes in a literal hell or not? It is irrelevant what the Jews may or may not believe about a literal hell, or anyone else for that matter as the existence of such a place is not predicated on what we may or may not believe but only what God has chosen to do regarding eternal punishment for the lost.

Amen, the veil is rent, indicating the time of reformation has come. The one time outward demonstration of Christ pouring out his unseen Spirit is finished The shadows have become substance. The kingdom of God which is not of those world (never will be) is restored to another time period before there were kings in Israel when men walked by faith.

From my experiences many acknowledge the fifteenth century reformation with the Catholicism but overlook the first century reformation . The first century reformation set the pattern for the fifteenth century reformation, a carbon copy same enemy (sola scriptura) all things written in the law and the prophets

Hebrews 9:9-11 King James Version (KJV) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

This is all rather fanciful and perhaps even delusional by the Jews and by Zionists in particular.
Jesus is not returning to dwell in some Third Temple but explicitly in order to save a rump of both the Jews and the rest of
humankind from total extermination - (nuclear war).
Jesus is coming back for his church and those who up to that last day are converted by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

And unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh should be saved: but, for the sake of the elect which he hath chosen,
he hath shortened the days. Mark 13:20 DRB and again in Matthew 24:22
And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.

The Jews have no Levitical priesthood or proven continuous sons of Aaron that are permitted to offer sacrifices in
any Temple. And all that has been done away with and is no longer applicable.

As for the coming Messiah he has been and gone and salvation has gone out to the gentiles. What Jesus requires from
the Jews is their repentance and obedience to the gospel; so that they too can be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit
and know their Lord and God; their Saviour as we do.

PAGE 1:
These are translators, professors, actual proofs provided by Catholic documentation (Encyclopedia), scholars, biblical historians, EVEN the admittance of a future POPE calling it fabrication, and many others weighing in on how the ORIGINAL MATTHEW 28:19 was written in Jesus NAME then changed later to the trinity: ALSO, if you actually read these proofs you will discover how the TRINITY is actually a GNOSTIC TEACHING!!


The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."


Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."


The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."




Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:

"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."




The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."


Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."




The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.


The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."


New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:

"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."


James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."




Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

PAGE 2:


The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:

By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."




Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:

By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."

PAGE 3:


The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:

The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels.

According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.

The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.

"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."


The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."


A History of The Christian Church:

1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."

On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles'Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?

"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed."


Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.


"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

Catholic Encyclopedia online, Baptism:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

There is no such sentence. Google found your sentence to be present only on some few oneness websites, therefore I suspect it to be fabricated.

HAHAHAHA

These sources ARE NOT ONENESS!!

1. Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/263 - Wikisource ...
   https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Catholic_Encyclopedia,_volume...
   Apr 04, 2016 · He died a devout Catholic in the arms of the celebrated Spanish Jesuit, Maldonatus. Baldwin was a very prolific writer on juridical and ecclesiastical topics. Among his works are: "Con- stantinus Magnus" (Basle, 1556; Strasburg, 1612); "Minucii Felicis Octavius" (Heidelberg, 1560).
2. Talk:Trinity/old1 - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trinity/old1
   The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
3. Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online
   https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia
   The Catholic Encyclopedia is the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history. This easy-to-search online version was originally printed between 1907 and 1912 in fifteen hard copy volumes.
4. Were adjustments made to Matthew's Gospel so the people ...
   www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2012_01JAN/2012JanWhyWe...
   The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
5. Was Matthew 28:19 Added To The Bible - trinitytruth.org
   www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
   The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “ The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century. The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:

Trinitytruth.org seems to be a oneness website.

Askacatholic.org - somebody, probably a oneness pentecostal, made a question similar to yours and the catholic response was:

"I see that you cut and pasted some things from another site...
In any case, the book of Matthew and all the Gospels were written in the first century, and the Synoptics were written far early in the century than has been formerly estimated. Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew is based on a very early Aramaic Matthew. If the phrase in question was a change, it was a change made during the Apostolic age"

The rest of your links just dances around the existence of the catholic encyclopedia and one is some wiki talk which I am not sure what it is.

The plot thickens. Now you are denying the Trinity as well? Is Jesus just a man? Isnt that idolatry to worship and praise a man? And get baptized in a regular man's name?

Do you believe Jesus is God in the flesh yes or no? Simple question, please answer directly.

This is Interesting discussion, I think It must be new topic.

yes i agree, is this a thread about red cows or is this a thread about trinity doctrine or is this a thread about whether certain verses of the Bible are original or later additions...? all the subjects are interesting but they are separate topics.

God is not a red cow and neither is he a man as us

Jesus as the Son of man seen informs us his temporal flesh as that seen.... it profits for nothing . Again God is not a man as us and neither is there a fleshly as that seen, a mediator between God and man .The Bible warns us of the antichrists, those who say a man seen must teach us rather than the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ not seen .We abide in Him not seen as he teaches us.

God is not a created being. He remains without mother or father beginning of spirit life or end thereof. He abides as our High Priest continually.

Well the original thread was about a red calf so yeah..

Nonetheless: My point is if we are willing to go as far as to say that Matthew 28:19 is a corruption by the catholic church, then we open the door for "what about this verse and that verse?"

This is why I believe that its an all or nothing deal. Either accept the books known as the Bible 100%, or 0%. But if we are willing to admit that even one verse has been corrupted, then we cant trust any of it, because who knows, it might be a corruption?

What are we arguing about again? As far as the KJV is concerned regarding a cockatrice, perhaps cockroach was spelled wrong. While hat is an insect it is technically a creature though.

AMEN!!

My faith in God is not shaken by the fact Christ and Jude both quote Enoch and yet Enoch's Book is not in our Bible. Or the fact both Joshua and David mention the Book of Jasher and Jasher is nowhere to be found within the 66 Books. I am actually amazed that more of the Old Testament has not been buggered with knowing the RCC council made a lot of decisions to manipulate their point of view. One thing is for certain concerning the Old Testament. Had the council NOT voted on every Book within the Old Testament, it would look more like the Torah. Instead, the RCC even thought they were brighter than the Jews who have been keeping their records and scrolls some 1,500 years before Christ. Our Old Testament is missing several Books that the real Old Testament in the Torah posses. Legibly, our Bible should be 80+ Books...at least!!

You have it mixed up a little. 66 books is a protestant invention, not of the RCC. The RCC has many more books.

Your hatred towards the RCC is obvious, but it should not make you mess with facts. The RCC canon is very similar to the LXX books. And the LXX is a work of Jews.

We weren't talking about translations, but original greek texts. And it was claimed the catholics have changed Matthew 28:19 which I REJECT.

No rapture? There is no doubt a rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 whatever you wish to call it. Rapture, catching away of the church. Its there:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I looked it up on biblehub and all translations agree. There is a rapture. It says CAUGHT UP in the clouds. If that's not a rapture or catching up, I don't know what else it can be.

Do you want to explain that first point? NO RAPTURE?